Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Finance (consultancy) (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After much extended time for discussion, there is a stalemate of consensus. If there is not in the future a substantial improvement in coverage by sources, this is likely to end up at AfD again. BD2412 T 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Social Finance (consultancy)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speedy renomination. While it looks like there are a lot of good sources here, the primary subject of all the RS listed is Social Impact Bonds, the policy this firm is promoting. They thus all fail WP:CORPDEPTH Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: This org has an in-depth article in the NYT this morning, focusing on the organization and not just the social impact bonds: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/business/job-training-work.html Ew3234 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh awesome! Alright, that's one source. To satisfy WP:GNG, it needs at least one more RS. This source covers specifically Social Finance's job training initiative, while the organization does much more than that. GNG was developed to ensure that wikipdians can write a comprehensive article on the subject, and unfortunately this is still not this case for this organisation. Mottezen (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mottezen, I'm somewhat new to Wiki but my reading of WP:GNG didn't find the "least one more RS" requirement for significant coverage. The policy says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I would say having an in-depth feature in today's New York Times, the nation's newspaper of record, meets significant coverage on its own. It's pretty much the most significant and quality coverage you can get. I don't have much of an investment in this topic, just stumbled upon this article after reading the NYT article and was surprised to see the deletion tag. And I'm not saying the article is perfect as-is, it can certainly use some clean up Ew3234 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, this is indeed a high-quality source, but it's just one. See Multiple sources, which says "the strictest sense the word "multiple" means "more than one" ". Mottezen (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When assessing wether a subjects has enough sources to pass GNG, users need to ask themselves wether it's possible to write a comprehensive article without relying excessively on non-RS, biased sources. Usually that means having three sources, but it can certainly be less. In this case, if we rely only on the NYT source, we'd be forces to disproportionally cover Social Finance's job training program. However, this is not a core part of their work. The current article doesn't discuss it. Their "about us" page doesn't even discuss it. This is why more reliable sources are needed. Mottezen (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also a link to a 2020 article in The Guardian which mentions the organisation's work on school exclusions, which has nothing to do with social impact bonds. Daejn (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep based on NYT article meets WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete First off - for those discussing passing GNG - that's the wrong guideline. This is an organization and it needs to pass NCORP which is a lot stricter when it comes to references to establish notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Looking at the references (omitting Primary sources) most spend their time describing "social impact bonds" and not the company. None meet the criteria as follows:
 * ThirdSector is entirely based on information provided by the company and/or a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * The Economist article explores the "idea" but only gives this company a passing mention to say the company "took up the idea" and then there are two more sentences where the company provides their "hopes" and describes "other areas" in which bonds might work. Article does not provide any in-depth information on the company. References fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
 * The Guardian article relies entirely on information provided by the topic company to describe the topic company, has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * BigLottery website is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
 * BBC reference is a mention-in-passing (based on PR) and the article mainly describes social impact bonds, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * Civil Society is a blog post, fails RS. Also the discussion is on social impact bonds and the topic company only gets a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * NYT article relies entirely on information about the company which was provided by the company, fails ORGIND
 * Finally, this NYT article referenced above by some Keep !voters is one of the "discovery"-type formatted articles where they follow an individual's story (saw Facebook Ad, unusual pitch, careful its not a scam, signed up, intensive training - then BINGO, you've been on a Social Finance course, how Amazing now let me tell you more) but quickly becomes clear that the article is an "advertorial" for the company. Once the original feel-good beginning has been read, you start to see that the information is being provided by the topic company, promoting its profile, mentioning that it is "powered" by a fund, has "supported" training programs, is "advising" Ohio, is "preparing a proposal" for the new labor secretary, is "seeking, designing and supporting" new programs, etc, etc, you get the drift. You'd expect this type of gushing language only in a company brochure. This is precisely the type of company-echo-chamber pseudo-article-advert that ORGIND's guidelines are there to prevent being used to establish notability that otherwise might skip through GNG. This article fails ORGIND.
 * None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no reading of WP:NCORP or even the WP:GNG which suggests a single source, no matter how good may, on its own, establish notability.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per HighKing. One source doesn't hit GNG, and the rest of the sourcing is not up to snuff. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "In September 2007 Social Finance officially came into life with a high-profile board, chaired by former NatWest director Bernard Horn and packed with finance heavyweights such as Fink, David Blood, a former Goldman Sachs banker, and James Strachan, a former Merrill Lynch managing director and former Audit Commission chairman. Since then Social Finance has grown into a 13-strong team headed by former investment banker David Hutchison." The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is substantial independent research and reporting.  The article notes: "But Social Finance, founded a decade ago to develop new ways to finance results-focused social programs, is showing how the idea could grow quickly just as the pandemic made job-training programs more important than ever. ... The Social Finance effort is powered by a fund of more than $40 million raised from philanthropic investors. The money goes toward paying for low-income students, as well as minority candidates and veterans, to enter the training programs. ... Social Finance is seeking, designing and supporting new programs — for-profit or nonprofit — that follow that training formula but then apply a different funding model. “There is emerging evidence that these kinds of programs are a very effective and exciting part of work force development,” said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “Social Finance is targeting and nurturing new programs, and it brings a financing mechanism that allows them to expand.”" The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is substantial independent research and reporting. The article includes analysis from Lawrence Katz.  The article notes: "In 2010, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice entered into an agreement with a nonprofit known as Social Finance to prevent reoffending by juvenile offenders released from prison in Peterborough, England. What made this contract unique is that the government payments to Social Finance were not based on delivery of services but instead on the level of government cost aversion from reduced recidivism. To cover the upfront cost of funding this prevention effort, Social Finance raised $5 million from private investors. If the effort successfully reduces recidivism 7.5% by 2016, then they will receive back their initial investment plus a performance bonus—totaling up to $8 million."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Social Finance to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep. Articles from RSes are covering the company in depth. Also, I am not aware that the NYT and the Guardian—two highly-reputable left wing newspapers—run unlabelled adverts. JBchrch (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.